Shaffer’s framework explained

This chart explains Shaffer‘s treatment of in rem/quasi-in-rem jurisdiction by recasting Justice Marshall’s decision in light of the three-part specific jurisdiction analysis we have discussed in class.

IR and QIR I QIR IIA QIR IIB
Relationship between property and suit Property subject of the suit Property related to suit Property unrelated to suit
Shaffer says “Unusual” for there not to be jurisdiction over property. The presence of property “may also favor” jurisdiction Presence of property alone insufficient; no jurisdiction without more contacts.
Trying to understand the Shaffer rationale in light of the three-part specific jurisdiction framework. Think of this as an easy case of specific jurisdiction.

PA: YES

GR: YES

RF: YES

Think of this as a case of possible specific jurisdiction, depending on application of evidence & but-for tests.

PA: YES

GR: MAYBE

RF: PROBABLY YES

Think of this as a case where there are contacts, but they do not give rise to the claim at all, so no specific jurisdiction.

PA: YES

GR: NO, so no specific jur.

RF: N/A b/c no specific jur.

In such a case, you’d need more contacts to permit SJ or GJ.

Without more contacts, the exercise of PJ would be akin to general jurisdiction over owner based on ownership of in-state property.

Presented in review 11/23/15. Posted same day.